ArticleIranian journal of microbiology2024
Diagnostic value of antibody testing in comparison with lung scan and PCR in patients suspected of having COVID-19.
Article in Iranian journal of microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: SARS-CoV-2 is a newly discovered viral infection. It's still unclear how antibodies react in infected individuals, and there is not enough evidence to support the clinical use of antibody examination. This study evaluates the diagnostic value of serologic tests for diagnosing COVID-19. Materials and Methods: 32 patients for whom serologic testing was performed within 7 to 21 days from symptom onset and whether they were diagnosed with COVID-19 by both PCR and lung HRCT as gold standard tests at the same time, were included in the study. Results: Serologic tests (IgM / IgG) compared to PCR and lung HRCT scan to diagnose COVID-19, were 89.3% specific and 59.6% sensitive. Positive predictive value (PPV) was 95% and negative predictive value (NPV) was 37%. The diagnostic accuracy index of the serologic test was 0.745 (CI 0.651-0.838) (p-value <0.001). Conclusion: Serologic testing can be a complementary alternative for SARA-CoV-2 nucleic acid RT-PCR, although it cannot replace it completely. IgG/IgM combo test kits and RT-PCR together can give more insight into the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.